“Wow, I’m not sure which is worse; the writer’s understanding of the modular home industry or grasp of basic grammar and writing skills. This article is a complete mess and only serves to continue to spread misinformation about the modular home industry. I found no meaningful or helpful information in this article [by Global Banking & Finance Review on modular homes and lending] whatsoever.”
– Tom Hardiman,
Modular Home Builders Association.
The video below serves to allow Global Banking & Finance Review to introduce themselves, for balance. It also reveals how some operations use “awards” to promote themselves, by spotlighting others. While that use of awards can be done legitimately, it can also be done in less defensible ways too.
The article in question that Tom Hardiman, Executive Director of the Modular Home Builders Association (MHBA). voiced his on-the-record concerns over is found after this introductory commentary, and brief critical analysis.
While there are a few statements – example, “Purchasing a modular home might be an exceptional choice” – the Global Banking & Finance Review article is riddled with inaccuracies about modular housing. It mentions manufactured homes, as well as “mobile homes,” and thus those too are potential point of confusion for less informed readers who rely on the “Global Banking & Finance Review” article entitled – “Why does your bank not finance modular homes?” – for any reliable or accurate information.
First – as factory-built housing industry professionals know, but as newcomers to the industry or researchers may not yet know – modular homes are built to the same standards as conventional housing. For scores of lenders, modular homes are treated the same as conventional housing in terms of lending. They are routinely appraised the same as conventional housing too. Harvard’s definitions of various kinds of factory-built homes, along with related commentary – on modular homes, manufactured housing, and pre-HUD Code mobile homes are found linked here or below.
Fast Modular Facts vs. Global Banking & Finance Review glitches
Modular homes are built in sections called “modules” inside of a building production center, where the homes are protected against the elements while being built. That factory-building process allows for more rapid and precise construction.
That said, to call a home building production center a “warehouse” – as Global Banking & Finance Review did – is absurd.
Once completed, the modules are transported to and erected on the homesites foundation. The home can often be ‘weathered in’ within a day. The video below features commercial modular or ‘prefab’ building, but the principles are similar. It also suggests the reasons why investors should consider factory-building as a growth opportunity.
The second modular video shown is a single family modular home installation, in a time elapse.
Would any of that been gleaned from Global Banking & Finance Review’s article?
The text of their article is shown below as a reference.
Once this is published, we plan to contact “Global Banking & Finance Review,” and ask them to pull the article, and publish a formal retraction in its place, because objectively speaking, Hardiman is correct. Their article is a hot mess.
There are so many flaws, that it is hopeless to attempt to salvage their “piece.”
- For that firm – or any others – who consider writing about factory-built housing, one arguably should contact several experts first.
- Then, those that want accurate information should have asked for expert reviews of a draft, before publishing such nonsense as what Global Banking & Finance Review sadly published.
- MHProNews – via this critical analysis – has labeled Global Banking & Finance Review‘s article as “fake news,” why? Because what can you politely call a pile of garbage masquerading as genuine information?
We can’t say how good, bad or meh the rest of “Global Banking & Finance Review” articles are. But if this flawed article – shown below – on modular housing and financing is any indication, then the Latin maxim, “caveat d’emptor” = “let the buyer beware” applies.
It is our sincere editorial hope and admonition that if they care about their reputation, as well the reading public, plus those in the factory built housing industry, that “Global Banking & Finance Review” will remove their article, publishing an apology in its place. This case is an example of why flawed media reports must be analyzed and promptly addressed by industry professionals.
Here below is the error-and-grammar plagued article in question. We may publish an update to this, if Global Banking & Finance Review cares enough to reply. To see the full-size version of the below, click here.
Once more, the above is NOT to be relied upon for accurate information. This is shown for critical analysis and fact-check purposes.
The above reviewed article should serve as a warning to the factory-built home industry that if the industry doesn’t define and defend itself, then others will define us, often to the industry’s harm, and to the public’s detriment. “We Provide, You Decide.” © ## (News, analysis, and commentary.)
(Third-party images and content are provided under fair use guidelines.)
Related Reports:
Survey Top 2017 PreFab, Modular, Tiny and 3D Printed Housing News Stories
1) To sign up in seconds for our MH Industry leading emailed news updates, click here.
2) To provide a News Tips and/or Commentary, click the link to the left. Please note if comments are on-or-off the record, thank you.
3) Marketing, Web, Video, Consulting, Recruiting and Training Resources
